Log in

. ..: .: ..::.: ..:.:.....: ...::: ...::.

April 2011
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

gwen [userpic]
yay Polk County, Iowa judge!

Iowa Judge Says Marriage Not Just Man, Woman

Judge Robert B. Hanson ruled that couples cannot be denied licenses to marry or marriage certificates or "in any other way be prevented from entering into civil marriage pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 595 by reason of the fact that both persons comprising such as couple are of the same sex."

Yes, this will be appealed, and we'll see what happens on the next level. But I suspect that this is going to be the way this battle is fought in every state, and I really hope that our justices still remember the phrase, "separate but not equal", because it's been unequivocally proven that once you create separate situations, they will be treated differently, and thus unequally.

Current Mood: quixoticquixotic

Sure, but that's orthogonal to the point I was making. The court clearly decided that separate is not equal for a lot of good reasons, and those reasons do translate to the issue of, "Well, they can't have marriage, but they can have (civil union|domestic partnership|etc)." Making a new "marriage" that isn't actually marriage will mean that the two "marriages" will be different and unequal.

So, on a rhetorical basis:
If "separate but equal" is a specific conceptual and legal point regarding race and education...
But 'marriage' and 'civil unions' are not representational of the same legal status...

Then what is an acceptable language to describe the disparity?

Just calling it Gay Rights doesn't seem to cut it these days.

I agree, having an ERA would help things, but I am not sure if it would solve it, merely a more efficient way of providing a bureaucracy.

I mean, by having a Dept. of Homeland Security actually improve the situation?